Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Referring to the order dated 23.10.1989 passed by this Court in this petitions it was sought to be contended that the said order disclose issuance of Contempt Notice and suo motu exercise of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and that though the limitation period is prescribed for exercise of powers under Section 12 or 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the restrictions imposed in relation to exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be read in Article 215 of the Constitution so as to restrict the constitutional powers of this Court to punish the person who is found to be guilty of commission of offence of Contempt of Court and that therefore, question of limitation does not arise at all in the case in hand. In that connection reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Pathan Nawabkhan v. Dr. Liyakatali Khan and Ors. and of the Apex Court in S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow v. Vinay Chandra Mishra . Referring to the Appellate Side Rules framed under Chapter XXXIV in exercise of powers under Article 215 and the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. and hereinafter called as 'the said rules' it was sought to be contended that the procedure in the matter of any contempt proceedings does not contemplate two stages of hearing-one at the admission and the second at final hearing, as is otherwise permissible in case of writ petitions or appeals. Considering the same and the provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of the said Rules framed regarding the contempt proceedings, the notice isssued on 23rd October, 1989 is to be construed as the notice of contempt contemplated under the said provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of the said Rules and therefore it is too late for the respondents to contend about the bar of limitation. At the same time drawing attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Subramanian Swami v. Rama Krishna Hegde it is sought to be contended that the issue regarding the applicability of limitation in case of exercise of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution is still pending before the Apex Court having referred to the Constitution Bench, and therefore the matter relating to the bar of limitation raised by the respondents should await for the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court.

8. In view of the attention being drawn to the order of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy (Supra), it will be necessary to deal with the said submission regarding postponement of the hearing on the point of the bar of limitation, before proceeding with the matter.

9. In para No. 3 of the order in Subramanian Swamy's case it has been observed that :

In our opinion, the questions that arise for consideration in these matters are of general public importance which are required to be considered by a Constitution Bench.
Referring to these observations it is sought to be contended that various questions which arise for consideration in relation to which the Apex Court has directed the matter to be placed before the Constitution Bench, include the question regarding applicability of the period of limitation to the matters wherein the Court exercises powers under Article 215 of the Constitution. The contention is to be rejected being devoid of substance. Perusal of the order passed by the Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy's case will disclose that the questions which have arisen and are required to be considered by the Constitution Bench are : "Whether in absence of consent of Attorney General or Solicitor General suo motu proceedings can be initiated against the alleged contemnor and whether the alleged contempt of a sitting Judge of Supreme Court in relation to the statutory functions discharged by him as a Commissioner cannot in law be regarded as a contempt of Supreme Court, and not in relation to whether the powers under Article 215 can be exercised ignoring the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or whether bar under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is applicable or not in case of exercise of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution. No doubt the advocate who was appearing for the alleged contemnor had made a submission before the Apex Court to the effect that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act would opearte as bar against initiation of suo motu proceedings for contempt. However, the order of the Apex Court nowhere discloses that such an objection was essentially in relation to the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution and not in relation to those under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, It is pertinent to note that even under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings is not prohibited. Therefore, there is no scope to presume that the questions which are stated to be of general public importance and therefore, required to be considered by the Constitution Bench would also include a question as to whether the suo motu proceedings under Article 215 can be initiated ignoring the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, in the absence of specific reference to such question in the said order, hence the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners based on the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy's case are to be rejected. It appears that it is a move to postpone the hearing of the matter after having heard, at length, the Counsels on both side.